From: Eric Whiting Subject: Re: 2.4.18: NFS_ALL patch greatly hurting UDP speed Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 11:23:43 -0700 Sender: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net Message-ID: <3C98D3AF.8091F420@amis.com> References: <3C88F8EE.86058BD5@sls.lcs.mit.edu> <3C98AD4B.8244EDC0@sls.lcs.mit.edu> <15512.44669.95177.801025@charged.uio.no> <15512.44969.304675.703836@charged.uio.no> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: I Lee Hetherington , nfs@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from dermis.amis.com ([207.141.5.253]) by usw-sf-list1.sourceforge.net with smtp (Exim 3.31-VA-mm2 #1 (Debian)) id 16nkkc-0002Uh-00 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:23:54 -0800 To: trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no Errors-To: nfs-admin@lists.sourceforge.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Discussion of NFS under Linux development, interoperability, and testing. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Trond, Some more data from some 2.4.18 tests I just ran... ==FIRST TEST CLIENT: CLEAN 2.4.18 kernel with NFSV3 enabled SERVER: Solaris 8 server (E280R) 100M switched network (1G backbone connecting these two boxes -- but results the same when staying on local switch) Writing with putc()... done: 5941 kB/s 59.3 %CPU Rewriting... done: 5254 kB/s 6.7 %CPU Writing intelligently... done: 5605 kB/s 4.1 %CPU Reading with getc()... done: 9028 kB/s 89.3 %CPU Reading intelligently... done: 197558 kB/s 100.3 %CPU ==SECOND TEST CLIENT: Same setup as the first but with linux-2.4.18-NFS_ALL.dif applied. Same .config file. SERVER: Same Writing with putc()... done: 5977 kB/s 63.5 %CPU Rewriting... done: 3494 kB/s 5.7 %CPU Writing intelligently... done: 734 kB/s 0.7 %CPU Reading with getc()... done: 9255 kB/s 72.8 %CPU Reading intelligently... done: 195361 kB/s 34.3 %CPU PROBLEM: the intelligent writes look bad. ==THIRD TEST Same setup as second test, but using dd instead of bonnie mohawk/test> time dd if=/dev/zero of=file bs=1024k count=1 1+0 records in 1+0 records out 0.000u 0.030s 0:05.06 0.5% 0+0k 0+0io 136pf+0w About 200k/s on a 100Mbit network -- not very good. I grabbed a simple tcpdump of that whole dd session. I'll send a off-list copy of the dump to Trond. eric Trond Myklebust wrote: > > >>>>> " " == Trond Myklebust writes: > > > exceeded' ICMP messages littered around the place. The first > > one comes just after the loss of fragments, and is accompanied > > by a 2 second delay, during which all the reads that are sent > > time out without receiving a single reply... > > Note: this 2 second period of silence appears to be what is really > causing the *100 slowdown. I've no idea what the switch is engaging in > during that time, but you might want to take a look to see if those > messages being sent during that period are indeed being received on > the server. > > Cheers, > Trond > > _______________________________________________ > NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs _______________________________________________ NFS maillist - NFS@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/nfs